MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Confidence Interval Estimation of the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient for Binary Outcome Data

2004· article· en· W1974553458 on OpenAlexafffund
Guangyong Zou, Allan Donner

Bibliographic record

VenueBiometrics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIntraclass correlationConfidence intervalEstimatorBiometricsMathematicsStatisticsInterval estimationPoint estimationBinary numberBinary dataVariance (accounting)CorrelationCorrelation coefficientRange (aeronautics)Interval (graph theory)CombinatoricsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We obtain closed-form asymptotic variance formulae for three point estimators of the intraclass correlation coefficient that may be applied to binary outcome data arising in clusters of variable size. Our results include as special cases those that have previously appeared in the literature (Fleiss and Cuzick, 1979, Applied Psychological Measurement 3, 537-542; Bloch and Kraemer, 1989, Biometrics 45, 269-287; Altaye, Donner, and Klar, 2001, Biometrics 57, 584-588). Simulation results indicate that confidence intervals based on the estimator proposed by Fleiss and Cuzick provide coverage levels close to nominal over a wide range of parameter combinations. Two examples are presented.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.307
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.307
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.219
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations115
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiometricsSame topicStatistical Methods and Bayesian InferenceFrench-language works237,207